Sil: questions and personal observations

**T-Mick** · August 31, 2012, 19:59

Can't answer most of these, but I do think I know the answer to the first one. A greatsword is considerably heavier than a two-handed bastard sword, so a higher strength character who is two-handing a bastard sword may wish to switch to the greatsword, just for the extra one or two dice sides. Not to mention that greatswords are sometimes (3d6), adding a bit more damage.

**Scatha** · August 31, 2012, 20:31

Thanks for the post. Well thought-out comments are always appreciated! I'll say something on most of your points.

Originally posted by bron

I've been playing Sil for a couple of weeks now and enjoying it a lot. Really a very nice game. So far, all my "wins" have used save-scumming, which I think is a perfectly reasonable learning/training technique for beginners.

Seems fine to me.

I don't quite understand the reason(s) for using a Greatsword. A bastard sword seems to do the same amount of damage when used two-handed (3d5), but also gives you the option of using it one-handed if e.g. you find a really great artifact shield.

The main reason you'd prefer a greatsword is if you're too strong to sensibly use a bastard sword one-handed and need a heavier weapon. Of course it can also be in practice that you've found a better greatsword than bastard sword.

I don't fully understand the reason behind making the "sides" strength bonus for a two-handed weapon be less than the bonus for a one-handed weapon (divisor of 1.5 rather than 1). If anything, it seems like strength should have *more* of an effect when smashing something with a two-handed blow. If I'm understanding the code correctly, right now if you have strength 4, a 4.0 pound bastard sword would do the same damage if wielded either one-handed or two-handed.

This isn't meant to be a case of Strength having less effect two-handed, but of needing a bigger weapon to take full advantage of your strength two-handed. Roughly speaking, you're applying more strength when using two hands, but the damage bonus for this is already factored into the weapon's numbers (since they are always used like that). You're right about the final example, but the idea is that you're so strong that with a sword like that you're already swinging it at full lethality. There is something a little bit odd extra strength not giving extra use in general, but it gives nice clean gameplay.

To harp on strength a bit more: it seems to be under-valued. I think that the strength number should be added to the melee (only) skill, just as dexterity is now.

Interesting. I think I came up with the same idea a few years ago when we were looking to increase the value of Strength relative to Dexterity, but it breaks the nice symmetry of four Skills each for Dexterity and Grace. I think it may still be the weakest stat, but it is pretty useful because of the way protection works, getting very high damage is great.

How good do you find a point of Strength compared to one in one the other stats?

I occasionally get the "charge" bonus when making a "flanking" attack. This seems unnecessarilly generous; I would think the charge bonus should be restricted to ATT_MAIN attacks only.

We really like this interaction as it gives a very fun play style (and makes some flavour sense, too). We do think Charge is a bit too good, however, and it gives a reduced bonus in the upcoming version.

I would like to see the "notes" file expanded to include a notation when a player increases skill points, not just when they take an ability. Something like: "(Melee increased 2 points to 8)" or whatever format seems good. This would make reading other people's dumps on the ladder more instructive. I admit it would probably double the length of the notes, but the notes are pretty short.

Interesting idea. I think this could be good if it didn't make the notes too awkward to read, but I worry it might if player tend to increase Skills one point at a time.

I was clearing some rubble with an extremely heavy mattock, and I got the message: "You have trouble wielding such a heavy weapon." I found this odd since I did *not* recieve such a message when I was wielding that same mattock while attacking a Kemenrauko. I looked around a bit, and it appears that the flag "heavy_wield" is checked in a couple of places, and set to FALSE in one place, but is never set to TRUE anywhere in the code.

Right, the weight is just checked when digging. Probably the wording on the message should change to not say "weapon".

Regarding the "Inner Light" ability: I admit I don't have much experience with taking this ability, but if I understand it, Inner Light makes it easier to see monsters that generate "unnatural darkness" (e.g. shadow worms) ? It seems like Inner Light should also counter the effects of the *player* generating unnatural darkness, i.e. negate the light penalty of using a shadow cloak.

The ability increases the light level by 1 on all the squares which are inside your regular light radius. This helps against shadow worms and their ilk, and also against light-fearing monsters like orcs. I see what you mean about the shadow cloak, but I don't see an elegant variation of the current rule which would do what you're thinking.

There doesn't seem to be any "Will" ability that resists fear. This seems odd, since that seems like the most natural thing for Will to resist. Resist Fear should be tacked on somewhere; at the very least, "Majesty" ought to include Resist Fear.

It could go somewhere, but you get already get a Will save against every source of fear, so the skill is already doing the work there. If anything I'd feel having it in an ability might reduce the extent to which it felt like Will protected against fear.

The "smithing" exploratory mode ought to behave as if you knew all the smithing skills, so the player could look at all the options and costs of everything they might possibly create.

We agree, and this is sitting on a to-do list.

The guarenteed 1st forge should probably be forced to have 3 uses. This would prevent people from re-starting the game repeatedly until they get a 4-use forge (or at least until they don't get a 2 use forge).

We recently decided to do exactly this.

The cost of forging poison arrows seems too high. It seems like a batch of 24 should only cost 1 strength, rather than 2.

Interesting. I'm inclined to agree that it looks big on balance grounds, but the costing comes from the cost of a brand, which seems very reasonably to be 2 Strength. I'm not sure if that's easy to change internally.

**jujuben** · August 31, 2012, 21:31

Originally posted by Scatha

Interesting. I'm inclined to agree that it looks big on balance grounds, but the costing comes from the cost of a brand, which seems very reasonably to be 2 Strength. I'm not sure if that's easy to change internally.

Is there an easy way to just make another class of brand with the same game effect but reduced cost, and only available on arrows?

I remember you were also trying to make daggers more interesting. If you go this route, also allowing the new brand type/smithing cost for them might make them a more useful option.

**ekolis** · August 31, 2012, 22:45

Originally posted by jujuben

Is there an easy way to just make another class of brand with the same game effect but reduced cost, and only available on arrows?

Or perhaps increase the number of arrows, if changing the cost is too hard?

**half** · August 31, 2012, 23:06

We could change it to only one point of strength for poisoned arrows and arrows of piercing, but in both cases I think it would actually be too powerful. Archery is very powerful in Sil -- at least for specialists. It is probably the most powerful approach in the game at the moment, so I'm prepared to make archer-smiths think twice about forging enchanted arrows. Two points of strength is still not so bad really.

**clouded** · August 31, 2012, 23:29

The side benefits of strength are pretty good to me; Door bashing, resisting disarms, breaking webs. More damage is always good. The main thing against strength is that there are playstyles which completely don't need it and usually 3 or so is enough to get all the sides you can unless you go really heavy (exception being rapid attack/two weapons), therefore getting more than this isn't a big deal, I think the side effects I mentioned don't get that much more out of it either. Grace has the same build dependancy too; often don't care about more than one grace skill and unwavering voice gives as much voice as you will need, though it's obviously better when you get more and more of it and there's lot of it to buy from skills.

Dex and Con are required for all characters and you really want as much as possible. (Pacifists can get away without con, but you still want as much as you can get)

**bron** · August 31, 2012, 23:54

Originally posted by Scatha

There is something a little bit odd extra strength not giving extra use in general, but it gives nice clean gameplay.

Yeah, I think this is the part that bothers me. I don't consider it "clean." A clean and simple version is "more strength gives more damage," and not "except sometimes depending on the exact weight of the weapon and some magic divisors whose values we don't tell you." Now that I understand this and know the values of the divisors, I can figure out the value (or lack thereof) of an extra point of strength. For example, in my current game I have a Glaive of Hador's House which weighs an incredibly annoying 5.9 lbs.

How good do you find a point of Strength compared to one in one the other stats?

Personally, i'll take CON, then DEX, then STR, then GRA. Admittedly I sometimes take the Melee skill "Strength" ability, but only because I already have the 20 skill points. I don't put extra points into Melee for the purpose of getting the stat increase. This is unlike the Will "Constitution" ability, where I *do* put extra points into Will specifically to get the stat boost.

could be good if it didn't make the notes too awkward to read, but I worry it might if player tend to increase Skills one point at a time.

I assume that most skill increases will be one point at a time. But I don't think this will make the notes too awkward, particularly if the note is short, e.g.: "(+1 Melee)". I think that the whole reason why somebody bothers to read the notes at all is to see what happened, so the additional information is good. Indeed, I'd like to see a *full* description of any newly forged artifacts put into the notes, not just the name, since a player may not still have the artifact with them at the end of the game (e.g. their Sword of Awsomeness broke while getting the Silmarils, or the Hammer of the Forge was abandoned after the final Masterpiece).

The ability increases the light level by 1 on all the squares which are inside your regular light radius. This helps against shadow worms and their ilk, and also against light-fearing monsters like orcs. I see what you mean about the shadow cloak, but I don't see an elegant variation of the current rule which would do what you're thinking.

Ah! Okay, that sums up the ability very nicely; thank you.

As for a variation of the current rule, just say that a shadow cloak does not reduce the current light radius. Instead of reducing the radius, a shadow cloak reduces the light level by 1 for all squares within the current light radius. This is exactly what Inner Light does, only in the other direction (i.e. it changes the intensity, but not the radius, of the light). Then the +1 from Inner Light would cancel out the -1 from the Shadow Cloak

you get already get a Will save against every source of fear, so the skill is already doing the work there. If anything I'd feel having it in an ability might reduce the extent to which it felt like Will protected against fear.

You already get a Will save against nearly everything, e.g. stunning, yet there is the Clarity ability.

**Scatha** · September 1, 2012, 00:36

Afraid this is a short post, so I won't address everything, but some quick comments:

Originally posted by bron

Personally, i'll take CON, then DEX, then STR, then GRA.

Interestingly I think Con is the stat half thinks might be weakest! Grace is a little odd since it's so build dependent.

What ratios would you put on the values of these (approximately). Would you swap 2 points of Grace or Strength for a point of Con?

As for a variation of the current rule, just say that a shadow cloak does not reduce the current light radius. Instead of reducing the radius, a shadow cloak reduces the light level by 1 for all squares within the current light radius. This is exactly what Inner Light does, only in the other direction (i.e. it changes the intensity, but not the radius, of the light). Then the +1 from Inner Light would cancel out the -1 from the Shadow Cloak

That would work mechanically, but it would mean that your "light radius" number was no longer accurate. I'm sure that could be fixed, but overall I'm not convinced it's worth the change.

You already get a Will save against nearly everything, e.g. stunning, yet there is the Clarity ability.

Personally I'm happy without resist fear in the tree, but it wouldn't seem out of flavour in Strength in Adversity. The issue is that that's already a relatively complicated ability.

**Philip** · September 1, 2012, 08:16

Speaking of making daggers interesting, allowing them(and maybe throwing axes, spears) to have the balanced ego would be interesting, providing an incentive to keep a couple?
Also, regarding stats, it is so build-dependent that I can't say. I've had characters with 3 STR, characters with 1 STR, characters with 5 DEX, ones with 3, anywhere from 3-8(a bit of an exception here, with three items of CON) on CON and 2-5 on GRA. My characters tend to prioritise DEX and CON though, and most of them didn't really like STR. Oddly, it's the throwing masters who I have 3 STR with, because you can get 2d7 instead of 2d4 on a throwing axe(read 4d7 and 4d4, criticals are common) and 1d12(3d12) instead of 1d9(3d9). It's unfortunate that daggers only get d6 instead of d5, though.

**debo** · September 1, 2012, 13:26

I think for certain build types, STR and/or CON matter not at all (e.g. archer, stealth-stabber), but you always want some of it to a certain threshold. CON seems like you would want as much of at as you can get, but it doesn't help you until you're already in trouble.

DEX and GRA, on the other hand, are always useful because they boost your skills. One extra point always helps.

I'd say CON is the least "useful" stat at the moment, assuming you have enough of it to sustain one terrible blow (4+, depending on protection). STR follows, and then DEX/GRA, depending on the focus of your build.

**clouded** · September 1, 2012, 14:35

I value con far more than any other stat beyond 600ft. Additional points do much more to keep you alive than with other stats, also considering the gains it gives you to healing and the health !con gives you. The only reason it can be unecessary is that you can easily gain perfect stealth, but even with that you can always make mistakes or play poorly. Perhaps with perfect play con is the least useful stat.

Edit: For me it's:

Early: Dex > Con > Str > Gra
Late: Con > Dex > Gra > Str

**half** · September 1, 2012, 14:53

Originally posted by bron

Yeah, I think this is the part that bothers me. I don't consider it "clean." A clean and simple version is "more strength gives more damage," and not "except sometimes depending on the exact weight of the weapon and some magic divisors whose values we don't tell you."

This seems a bit harsh. We tell you how this works in both the tutorial and the manual. I agree that it would be good to have this be somehow easily available to you during regular gameplay too, but we do give much more info on how Strength affects combat than other prominent games in this forum such as Vanilla Angband...

As to the mechanic, Scatha and I have talked about it a lot and think it is really good. We think it is just silly that in most games a really strong character gets the same strength bonus with a battle axe and a dagger. Clearly the latter shouldn't give much of a return on investment in strength. Limiting the usable strength by weapon weight seemed a really nice way to handle this common oddity in RPG systems, especially when combined with the possibility of finding weapons with different weights.

We did try a system where you get a reduced strength bonus above that limit, but we found that: (1) it was more complex a system, (2) it didn't make for interesting gameplay. It is this system that our current system is more clean than. Obviously ours is less clean than a system that ignores weight altogether, but we are buying interesting gameplay and an interesting innovation in RPG mechanics for a small amount of complexity.

**half** · September 1, 2012, 14:57

For the record, I think:

Dex > Gra = Con > Str

I'm pretty happy with this. Tolkien's works are not about big brawny warriors, so I like the fact that Str is the least valuable stat. We would ideally like Dex to be a little less good though...

**Derakon** · September 1, 2012, 17:23

Originally posted by half

As to the mechanic, Scatha and I have talked about it a lot and think it is really good. We think it is just silly that in most games a really strong character gets the same strength bonus with a battle axe and a dagger. Clearly the latter shouldn't give much of a return on investment in strength. Limiting the usable strength by weapon weight seemed a really nice way to handle this common oddity in RPG systems, especially when combined with the possibility of finding weapons with different weights.

Forgive me for not being familiar with Sil's mechanics (and thus just jumping in here with an uninformed opinion -- typical American!), but would something like "max STR damage bonus = weapon weight in pounds" make some sense? And then you could apply a 1.5x or 2x multiplier to the bonus if you're going two-handed.

Sil: questions and personal observations

Sil: questions and personal observations

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment